I borrowed the retained covers for our UR5e inspection proposal and found one sample in three folders. Good, scratched and doubtful. The bright line shifts when the light moves, but the folder names have become quite firm opinions.
I want to get the actual sample decision and a repeatable view agreed before the team prices another camera. Or another light, which was the latest suggestion. Who should be in that first comparison?
The person who currently accepts the finish, with the actual covers and the existing appearance requirement, because you need to know what the station is meant to find before choosing equipment to find it.
Finishing inspector has agreed to join. They say the doubtful folder was someone's temporary holding area, then a later export treated it as a defect class. That explains one opinion.
Keep that export away from training data. Don't just rename the folder and assume nobody copied it. I'd tell the person building the dataset which labels are unverified.
Yes. The moving band isn't a scratch, but there's an edge scuff. Inspector hasn't finished deciding whether that scuff fails this product's requirement.
I'd keep the scuff location with the images too, so the imaging person knows which physical feature the eventual decision concerns (not whichever line looks most dramatic).
There's a static nest from the tooling trial. We need to check that the cover seats consistently in it; until now people have held the samples by hand.
I'd still try a little deliberate presentation variation. A perfect nest photo won't tell you whether a minor normal seating difference makes the important scuff vanish.
Yes, once the nominal presentation is repeatable, have tooling and imaging define the variation to assess rather than letting everyone tilt it differently and call that the same trial.
Quality has rejected the scuffed cover. We've retained it with the scuff marked on its record. Static captures are being compared at the agreed presentation and nearby positions.
Not reliably in the initial set. The images are repeatable, but one presentation makes the scuff very faint. So we have a better reference and still no accepted imaging setup.
Keep that faint view in the supplier comparison, with the approved rejection reason; otherwise somebody may select only the convincing pictures when presenting their proposed lighting.